Part 1

# Amphitryo, Asinaria, Aulularia, Bacchides, Captivi: Amphitryon, The Comedy of Asses, The Pot of Gold, The Two; Bacchises, The Captives ### By Plautus, Titus Maccius

---

Produced by Ted Garvin, Louise Hope and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

[Transcriber’s Note: Footnotes are collected at the end of each play. Where a footnote refers to an omitted passage, the verses before and after the omission have been numbered in parentheses: (182) (184) All other line numbers are from the original text.]

* * * * *

P L A U T U S

With an English Translation by

PAUL NIXON Dean of BOWDOIN COLLEGE, Maine

In Five Volumes

I

AMPHITRYON THE COMEDY OF ASSES THE POT OF GOLD THE TWO BACCHISES THE CAPTIVES

Cambridge, Massachusetts HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS

London WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD

_First printed_ 1916

* * * * *

CONTENTS

Greek Originals of the Plays........vii Introduction.........................ix Bibliography.......................xvii I. Amphitruo, or Amphitryon..............1 II. Asinaria, or the Comedy of Asses....123 III. Aulularia, or the Pot of Gold.......231 IV. Bacchides, or the Two Bacchises.....325 V. Captivi, or the Captives............459 Index...............................569

[Transcriber’s Note: The Index of Proper Names is not included in this e-text.]

* * * * *

THE GREEK ORIGINALS OF THE PLAYS IN THIS VOLUME

In this and each succeeding volume a summary will be given of the consensus of opinion[1] regarding the Greek originals of the plays in the volume and regarding the time of presentation in Rome of Plautus’s adaptations. It may be that some general readers will be glad to have even so condensed an account of these matters as will be offered them.

The original of the _Amphitruo_ is not now thought to have been a work of the Middle Comedy but of the New Comedy, very possibly Philemon’s Νὺξ μακρά. A clue to the Greek play’s date is found in the description of Amphitryon’s battle with the Teloboians,[2] a battle fought after the manner of those of the Diadochi who came into prominence at the death of Alexander the Great. The date of the Plautine adaptation of this play, as in the case of the _Asinaria_, _Aulularia_, _Bacchides_,[3] and _Captivi_, is quite uncertain, beyond the fact that it no doubt belongs, like almost all of his extant work, to the last two decades of his life, 204-184 B.C. The _Amphitruo_ is one of the five[4] plays in the first two volumes whose scene is not laid in Athens.

The Ὀναγός of a certain Demophilus,[5] otherwise unknown to us, was the onginal of the _Asinaria._ The assertion of Libanus that he is his master’s Salus[6] is thought to be a fling at the honours decreed certain of the Diadochi, who were called, while still alive, Σωτῆρες. This possibility, together with the fact that the Pellaean[7] merchant and the Rhodian[8] Periphanes travel to Athens-- northern Greece and the Aegaean therefore being pacified and Athens at peace with Macedon--would indicate that the Ὀναγός was written while Demetrius Poliorcetes controlled Macedon, 294-288 B.C.

Very slender evidence connects the _Aulularia_ with some unknown play of Menander’s in which a miser is represented δεδιὼς μή τι τῶν ἔιδον ὁ καπνος οἴχοιτο φερων. Euclio’s distress[9] at seeing any smoke escape from his house seems at least to suggest that Plautus may have borrowed the _Aulularia_ from Menander. The allusion to _praefectum mulierum_,[10] rather than _censorem_, would seem to show that in the original γυναικοι ομον had been written; this would prove the Greek play to have been presented while Demetrius of Phalerum was in power at Athens (317-307 B.C.), where he introduced this detested office, which was done away with by 307 B.C.

Ritschl[11] has shown clearly enough that the original of the _Bacchides_ was Menander’s Δὶς ἐξαπατῶν. The fact that Athens, Samos, and Ephesus are at peace, that the Aegaean is not swept by hostile fleets, that one can travel freely between Athens and Phoeis, together with the allusion to Demetrius,[12] lead one to believe that the Δὶς ἐξαπατῶν was written either between the years 316-307 or 298-296 B.C.

The original of the _Captivi_ is quite unknown, while the war between the Aetolians and Eleans gives the only clue to the date of this original. Hueffner[13] considers it probable that the war was that between Aristodemus and Alexander, and the Greek play was produced shortly after 314 B.C. Others[14] assume that the scene of the play would not be Aetolia unless Aetolia had become an important state, and that the war was therefore one of the third century B.C.

[Footnote 1: See especially Hueffner, _De Plauti Comoediarum Exemplis Atticis_, Göttingen, 1894; Legrand, _Daos_, Paris, 1910, English translation by James Loeb under title _The New Greek Comedy_, William Heinemann, 1916; Leo, _Plautinische Forschungen_, Berlin, 1912.]

[Footnote 2: _Amph._ 203 _seq._]

[Footnote 3: Produced later than the _Epidicus._ Cf. _Bacch._ 214.]

[Footnote 4: _Amphitruo_, Thebes, _Captivi_, Aetolia, _Cistellaria_, Sicyon, _Curculio_, Epidaurus (the Caria first referred to in v. 67 was a Greek town, not the state in Asia Minor), _Menaechmi_, Epidamnus.]

[Footnote 5: _Asin._ Prol. 10-11.]

[Footnote 6: _Asin._ 713.]

[Footnote 7: _Asin._ 334.]

[Footnote 8: _Asin._ 499.]

[Footnote 9: _Aulul._ 299, 301.]

[Footnote 10: _Aulul._ 504.]

[Footnote 11: Ritschl, _Parerga_, pp. 405 _seq._ Cf. Menander, _Fragments_, 125, 126.]

[Footnote 12: _Bacch._ 912.]

[Footnote 13: Hueffner, _op. cit._ pp. 41-42.]

[Footnote 14: Cf. Legrand, _op. cit._ p. 18.]

INTRODUCTION

Little is known of the life of Titus Maccius Plautus. He was born about 255 B.C. at Sarsina, in Umbria; it is said that he went to Rome at an early age, worked at a theatre, saved some money, lost it in a mercantile venture, returned to Rome penniless, got employment in a mill and wrote, during his leisure hours, three plays. These three plays were followed by many more than the twenty extant, most of them written, it would seem, in the latter half of his life, and all of them adapted from the comedies of various Greek dramatists, chiefly of the New Comedy.[15] Adaptations rather than translations they certainly were. Apart from the many allusions in his comedies to customs and conditions distinctly Roman, there is evidence enough in Plautus’s language and style that he was not a close translator. Modern translators who have struggled vainly to reproduce faithfully in their own tongues, even in prose, the countless puns and quips, the incessant alliteration and assonance in the Latin lines, would be the last to admit that Plautus, writing so much, writing in verse, and writing with such careless, jovial, exuberant ease, was nothing but a translator in the narrow sense of the term.

Very few of his extant comedies can be dated, so far as the year of their production in Rome is concerned, with any great degree of certainty. _The Miles Gloriosus_ appeared about 206, the _Cistellaria_ about 202, _Stichus_ in 200, _Pseudolus_ in 191 B.C.; the _Truculentus_, like _Pseudolus_, was composed when Plautus was an old man, not many years before his death in 184 B.C.

Welcome as a full autobiography of Plautus would be, in place of such scant and tasteless biographical morsels as we do have, only less welcome, perhaps, would be his own stage directions for his plays, supposing him to have written stage directions and to have written them with something more than even modern fullness. We should learn how he met the stage conventions and limitations of his day; how successfully he could, by make-up and mannerism, bring on the boards palpably different persons in the Scapins and Bobadils and Doll Tear-sheets that on the printed page often seem so confusingly similar, and most important, we should learn precisely what sort of dramatist he was and wished to be.

If Plautus himself greatly cared or expected his restless, uncultivated, fun-seeking audience to care, about the construction of his plays, one must criticize him and rank him on a very different basis than if his main, and often his sole, object was to amuse the groundlings. If he often took himself and his art with hardly more seriousness than does the writer of the vaudeville skit or musical comedy of to-day, if he often wished primarily to gain the immediate laugh, then much of Langen’s long list of the playwright’s dramatic delinquencies is somewhat beside its intended point.

And in large measure this--to hold his audience by any means--does seem to have been his ambition: if the joke mars the part, down with the part; if the ludicrous scene interrupts the development of the plot, down with the plot. We have plenty of verbal evidence that the dramatist frequently chose to let his characters become caricatures; we have some verbal evidence that their “stage business” was sometimes made laughably extravagant; in many cases it is sufficiently obvious that he expected his actors to indulge in grotesqueries, well or ill timed, no matter, provided they brought guffaws. It is probable, therefore, that in many other cases, where the tone and “stage business” are not as obvious, where an actor’s high seriousness might elicit catcalls, and burlesque certainly would elicit chuckles, Plautus wished his players to avoid the catcalls.

This is by no means the universal rule. In the writer of the _Captivi_, for instance, we are dealing with a dramatist whose aims are different and higher. Though Lessing’s encomium of the play is one to which not all of us can assent, and though even the _Captivi_ shows some technical flaws, it is a work which must be rated according to the standards we apply to a _Minna von Barnhelm_ rather than according to those applied to a _Pinafore_: here, certainly, we have comedy, not farce.

But whatever standards be applied to his plays their outstanding characters, their amusing situations, their vigour and comicality of dialogue remain. Euclio and Pyrgopolynices, the straits of the brothers Menaechmus and the postponement of Argyrippus’s desires, the verbal encounter of Tranio and Grumio, of Trachalio and the fishermen-- characters, situations, and dialogues such as these should survive because of their own excellence, not because of modern imitations and parallels such as Harpagon and Parolles, the misadventures of the brothers Antipholus and Juliet’s difficulties with her nurse, the remarks of Petruchio to the tailor, of Touchstone to William.

Though his best drawn characters can and should stand by themselves, it is interesting to note how many favourite personages in the modern drama and in modern fiction Plautus at least prefigures. Long though the list is, it does not contain a large proportion of thoroughly respectable names: Plautus rarely introduces us to people, male or female, whom we should care to have long in the same house with us. A real lady seldom appears in these comedies, and--to approach a paradox--when she does she usually comes perilously close to being no lady; the same is usually true of the real gentleman. The generalization in the Epilogue of _The Captives_ may well be made particular: “Plautus finds few plays such as this which make good men better.” Yet there is little in his plays which makes men--to say nothing of good men--worse. A bluff Shakespearean coarseness of thought and expression there often is, together with a number of atrocious characters and scenes and situations. But compared with the worst of a Congreve or a Wycherley, compared with the worst of our own contemporary plays and musical comedies, the worst of Plautus, now because of its being too revolting, now because of its being too laughable, is innocuous. His moral land is one of black and white, mostly black, without many of those really dangerous half-lights and shadows in which too many of our present day playwrights virtuously invite us to skulk and peer and speculate.

Comparatively harmless though they are, the translator has felt obliged to dilute certain phrases and lines.

The text accompanying his version is that of Leo, published by Weidmann, 1895-96. In the few cases where he has departed from this text brief critical notes are given; a few changes in punctuation have been accepted without comment. In view of the wish of the Editors of the Library that the text pages be printed without unnecessary defacements, it has seemed best to omit the lines that Leo brackets as un-Plautine[16]: attention is called to the omission in each case and the omitted lines are given in the note; the numbering, of course, is kept unchanged. Leo’s daggers and asterisks indicating corruption and lacunae are omitted, again with brief notes in each case.

The translator gladly acknowledges his indebtedness to several of the English editors of the plays, notably to Lindsay, and to two or three English translators, for a number of phrases much more happily turned by them than by himself: the difficulty of rendering verse into prose-- if one is to remain as close as may be to the spirit and letter of the verse, and at the same time not disregard entirely the contributions made by the metre to gaiety and gravity of tone--is sufficient to make him wish to mitigate his failure by whatever means. He is also much indebted to Professors Charles Knapp, K.C.M. Sills, and F.E. Woodruff for many valuable suggestions.

Brunswick, Me.,

September, 1913.

[Footnote 15: The _Asinaria_ was adapted from the Ὀναγὸς of Demophilus; the _Casina_ from the Κληρούμενοι, the _Rudens_ from an unknown play, perhaps the Πήρα, of Diphilus; the _Stichus_, in part, from the Ἀδελφοί ά of Menander. Menander’s Δὶς ἐξαπατῶν was probably the source of the _Bacchides_, while the _Aulularia_ and _Cistellaria_ probably were adapted from other plays (titles unknown) by Menander. The _Mercator_ and _Trinummus_ are adaptations of Philemon’s Ἐμπορος and Θησαυρός, the _Mostellaria_ very possibly is an adaptation of his Φάσμα, the _Amphitruo_, perhaps, an adaptation of his Νὺξ μακρά.]

[Footnote 16: It seemed best to make no exceptions to this rule; even such a line as Bacchides 107 is therefore omitted. Cf. Lindsay, _Classical Quarterly_, 1913, pp. 1, 2, Havet, _Classical Quarterly_, 1913, pp. 120, 121.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

_Principal Editions:_ Merula, Venice, 1472; the first edition. Camerarius, Basel, 1552. Lambinus, Paris, 1576; with a commentary. Pareus, Frankfurt, 1619, 1623, and 1641. Gronovius, Leyden, 1664-1684. Bothe, Berlin, 1809-1811. Ritschl, Bonn, 1848-1854; a most important edition; contains only nine plays. Goetz, Loewe, and Schoell, Leipzig, 1871-1902; begun by Ritschl, as a revision and continuation of the previous edition. Ussing, Copenhagen, 1875-1892; with a commentary. Leo, Berlin, 1895-1896. Lindsay, Oxford, 1904-1905. Goetz and Schoell. Leipzig, 1892-1904.

_English Translations:_ Thornton, and others, London, second edition, 1769-1774; in blank verse. Sugden, London, 1893; the first five plays, in the original metres.

_General:_ Ritschl, _Parerga_, Leipzig, 1845; _Neue plautinische Excurse_, Leipzig, 1869. Müller, _Plautinische Prosodie_, Berlin, 1869. Reinhardstoettner (Karl von), _Spätere Bearbeitungen plautinischer Lustspiele_, Leipzig, 1886. Langen, _Beiträge zur Kritik und Erklärung des Plautus_, Leipzig, 1880; _Plautinische Studien_, Berlin, 1886. Sellar, _Roman Poets of the Republic_, Oxford, third edition, 1889, pp. 153-203. Skutsch, _Forschungen zur lateinischen Grammatik und Metrik_, Leipzig, 1892. Leo, _Plautinische Forschungen_, Berlin, 1895; second edition, 1912; _Die plautinischen Cantica und die hellenistische Lyrik_, Berlin, 1897. Lindsay, _Syntax of Plautus_, Oxford, 1907.

PRINCIPAL MANUSCRIPTS

Ambrosianus palimpsestus (A), 4th century. Palatinus Vaticanus (B), 10th century. Palatinus Heidelbergensis (C), 11th century. Vaticanus Ursinianus (D), 11th century. Leidensis Vossianus (V), 12th century. Ambrosianus (E), 12th century. Londinensis (J), 12th century.

P = the supposed archetype of BCDVEJ.

SOME ANNOTATED EDITIONS OF PLAYS IN THE FIRST VOLUME

_Amphitruo_, A. Palmer 1890. _Asinaria_, Gray; Cambridge, University Press, 1894. _Aulularia_, Wagner; London, George Bell & Sons, 1878. _Captivi_, Brix; 6th edition, revised by Niemeyer; Leipzig, Teubner, 1910. _Captivi_, Sonnenschein; London, W. Swan Sonnenschein & Allen, 1880. _Captivi_, W.M. Lindsay 1900.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

AMPHITRUO

AMPHITRYON

* * * * *

ARGVMENTVM I[1]

ARGUMENT OF THE PLAY (I)

[Footnote 1: None of the Arguments prefixed to the plays is by Plautus. Their date is disputed, the acrostics having been written during the first century B.C., perhaps, the non acrostics later.]

In faciem versus Amphitruonis Iuppiter, dum bellum gereret cum Telobois hostibus, Alcmenam uxorem cepit usurariam. Mercurius formam Sosiae servi gerit absentis: his Alcmena decipitur dolis. postquam rediere veri Amphitruo et Sosia, uterque deluduntur in mirum modum. hinc iurgium, tumultus uxori et viro, donec cum tonitru voce missa ex aethere adulterum se Iuppiter confessus est. 10

While Amphitryon was engaged in a war with his foes, the Teloboians, Jupiter assumed his appearance and took the loan of his wife, Alcmena. Mercury takes the form of an absent slave, Sosia, and Alcmena is deceived by the two impostors. After the real Amphitryon and Sosia return they both are deluded in extraordinary fashion. This leads to an altercation and quarrel between wife and husband, until there comes from the heavens, with a peal of thunder, the voice of Jupiter, who owns that he has been the guilty lover.

ARGVMENTVM II

ARGUMENT OF THE PLAY (II)

*A*more captus Alcumenas Iuppiter *M*utavit sese in formam eius coniugis, *P*ro patria Amphitruo dum decernit cum hostibus. *H*abitu Mercurius ei subservit Sosiae. *I*s advenientis servum ac dominum frustra habet. *T*urbas uxori ciet Amphitruo, atque invicem *R*aptant pro moechis. Blepharo captus arbiter *V*ter sit non quit Amphitruo decernere. *O*mnem rem noscunt. geminos Alcumena enititur.[2]

Jupiter, being seized with love for Alcmena, changed his form to that of her husband, Amphitryon, while he was doing battle with his enemies in defence of his country. Mercury, in the guise of Sosia, seconds his father and dupes both servant and master on their return. Amphitryon storms at his wife: charges of adultery, too, are bandied back and forth between him and Jupiter. Blepharo is appointed arbiter, but is unable to decide which is the real Amphitryon. They learn the whole truth at last, and Alcmena gives birth to twin sons.

PERSONAE

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

MERCVRIVS DEUS SOSIA SERVUS IVPPITER DEUS ALCVMENA MATRONA AMPHITRVO DUX BLEPHARO GUBERNATOR BROMIA ANCILLA

MERCURY, _a god._ SOSIA, _slave of Amphitryon._ JUPITER, _a god._ ALCMENA, _wife of Amphitryon._ AMPHITRYON, _commander-in-chief of the Theban army._ BLEPHARO, _a pilot._ BROMIA, _maid to Alcmena._

_Scaena Thebis._

_Scene:--Thebes. A street before Amphitryon’s house._

PROLOGVS[3]

PROLOGUE

[Footnote 3: The genuineness of the Prologues of these plays has long been a moot question. The tendency of the more recent investigators has been to hold that all were, at least in part, written by Plautus himself.]

MERCVRIVS DEVS

SPOKEN BY THE GOD MERCURY

Ut vos in vostris voltis mercimoniis emundis vendundisque me laetum lucris adficere atque adiuvare in rebus omnibus et ut res rationesque vostrorum omnium bene me expedire voltis peregrique et domi bonoque atque amplo auctare perpetuo lucro quasque incepistis res quasque inceptabitis,

According as ye here assembled would have me prosper you and bring you luck in your buyings and in your sellings of goods, yea, and forward you in all things; and according as ye all would have me find your business affairs and speculations happy outcome in foreign lands and here at home, and crown your present and future undertakings with fine, fat profits for evermore;

et uti bonis vos vostrosque omnis nuntiis me adficere voltis, ea adferam, ea uti nuntiem quae maxime in rem vostram communem sient-- 10 nam vos quidem id iam scitis concessum et datum mi esse ab dis aliis, nuntiis praesim et lucro--: haec ut me voltis adprobare adnitier,[4] (13) ita huic facietis fabulae silentium (15) itaque aequi et iusti his eritis omnes arbitri.

and according as ye would have me bring you and all yours glad news, reporting and announcing matters which most contribute to your common good (for ye doubtless are aware ere now that ’tis to me the other gods have yielded and granted plenipotence o’er messages and profits); according as ye would have me bless you in these things, then in such degree will ye (_suddenly dropping his pomposity_) keep still while we are acting this play and all be fair and square judges of the performance.

Nunc cuius iussu venio et quam ob rem venerim dicam simulque ipse eloquar nomen meum. Iovis iussu venio, nomen Mercurio est mihi. pater huc me misit ad vos oratum meus, 20 tam etsi, pro imperio vobis quod dictum foret, scibat facturos, quippe qui intellexerat vereri vos se et metuere, ita ut aequom est Iovem;

Now I will tell you who bade me come, and why I came, and likewise myself state my own name. Jupiter bade me come: my name is Mercury (_pauses, evidently hoping he has made an impression_). My father has sent me here to you to make a plea, yea, albeit he knew that whatever was told you in way of command you would do, inasmuch as he realized that you revere and dread him as men should Jupiter.

verum profecto hoc petere me precario a vobis iussit, leniter, dictis bonis. etenim ille, cuius huc iussu venio, Iuppiter non minus quam vostrum quivis formidat malum: humana matre natus, humano patre, mirari non est aequom, sibi si praetimet;

But the fact remains that he has bidden me make this request in suppliant wise, with gentle, kindly words. (_confidentially_) For you see, that Jupiter that “bade me come here” is just like any one of you in his horror of (_rubbing his shoulders reflectively_) trouble[A]: his mother being human, also his father, it should not seem strange if he does feel apprehensive regarding himself.

[Footnote A: Actors might be whipped on occasion.]

atque ego quoque etiam, qui Iovis sum filius, 30 contagione mei patris metuo malum. propterea pace advenio et pacem ad vos affero[5]: iustam rem et facilem esse oratam a vobis volo, nam iusta ab iustis iustus sum orator datus.

Yes, and the same is true of me, the son of Jupiter: once my father has some trouble I am afraid I shall catch it, too. (_rather pompously again_) Wherefore I come in peace and peace do I bring to you. It is a just and trifling request I wish you to grant: for I am sent as a just pleader pleading with the just for what is just.

nam iniusta ab iustis impetrari non decet, iusta autem ab iniustis petere insipientia est; quippe illi iniqui ius ignorant neque tenent. nunc iam huc animum omnes quae loquar advortite. debetis velle quae velimus: meruimus et ego et pater de vobis et re publica; 40

It would be unfitting, of course, for unjust favours to be obtained from the just, while looking for just treatment from the unjust is folly; for unfair folk of that sort neither know nor keep justice. Now then, pay attention all of you to what I am about to say. Our wishes should be yours: we deserve it of you, my father and I, of you and of your state.

nam quid ego memorem,--ut alios in tragoediis vidi, Neptunum Virtutem Victoriam Martem Bellonam, commemorare quae bona vobis fecissent,--quis bene factis meus pater, deorum regnator[6] architectust[7] omnibus?

Ah well, why should I--after the fashion of other gods, Neptune, Virtue, Victory, Mars, Bellona, whom I have seen in the tragedies recounting their goodness to you-- rehearse the benefits that my father, ruler of the gods, hath builded up for all men?

sed mos numquam illi fuit patri meo,[8] ut exprobraret quod bonis faceret boni; gratum arbitratur esse id a vobis sibi meritoque vobis bona se facere quae facit.

It never was a habit of that sire of mine to twit good people with the good he did them; he considers you grateful to him for it and worthy of the good things he does for you.

Nunc quam rem oratum huc veni primum proloquar, 50 post argumentum huius eloquar tragoediae. quid? contraxistis frontem, quia tragoediam dixi futuram hanc? deus sum, commutavero.

Now first as to the favour I have come to ask, and then you shall hear the argument of our tragedy. What? Frowning because I said this was to be a tragedy? I am a god: I’ll transform it.

eandem hanc, si voltis, faciam ex tragoedia comoedia ut sit omnibus isdem vorsibus. utrum sit an non voltis? sed ego stultior, quasi nesciam vos velle, qui divos siem.